Ostash: Advocacy important for new law

Jack Barnwell Staff Writer RidgecrestDI

Friday

Oct 18, 2019 at 7:38 AM

A new law that will push back the start time for the state's public high schools and middle schools could have far-reaching effects locally in the Indian Wells Valley — should the area remain categorized as an urban cluster.

However, Sierra Sands Unified School District Superintendent Dave Ostash said it's too early to see what effect that new law will have locally.

"We are in a wait-and-see mode right now," Ostash said Wednesday. "Our initial focus at the moment will be on advocacy.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the new law, Senate Bill 328, into law on Sunday, prompting California to become the first state in the union to push back school start times. The bill will mandate that high schools begin their school day no earlier than 8:30 a.m.; middle schools would start no earlier than 8 a.m.

Currently, Sheman E. Burroughs High School’s classes start at 6:45 a.m. Both James Monroe and Murray middle schools start at 7:20 a.m. All three have a “late start” Wednesday schedule; BHS at 7:10 a.m. and the middle schools at 8 a.m.

The bill has some additional provisions that exempt rural school districts and would allow the continuation of "zero period" classes (activities that don't generate school daily attendance for purpose of state funding).

Ostash said that Kern County Superintendent of Schools Mary Barlow is looking at having all of Kern County classified as rural.

The new law takes effect in the 2022-23 school year, or on the date in which a district or charter school's agreement with the local collective bargaining unit that was active as of Jan. 1, 2020 expires.

Ostash said Portantino will also being working collaboratively with others to define “rural school district” over the next three years.

“I think Portantino recognizes that the state will go through and decide what that means this next school year,” Ostash said. “Our position will continue to be advocacy that we should not be subject to this law because we have unique characteristics in this district and this valley.”

A similar bill came before former Gov. Jerry Brown last year, but he promptly rejected it, citing it as a “one-size-fits-all approach” in his veto message. Brown had noted such decisions should be left to local school districts.

Gov. Gavin Newsom parted ways. A 2011-12 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention backs the bill when it found that the average school start time for California schools was 8:07 a.m.; some schools in the state required students to be in school before 7:30 a.m.

A 2014 opinion by the American Academy of Pediatrics, cited in Portantino’s bill, states that middle and high schools in most districts should not start school until 8:30 a.m. The argument indicates links between more sleep derived from later start times and better school performance and health among adolescents and young adults.

The AMP study opined that it “recognizes insufficient sleep in adolescents as a public health issue, endorses the scientific rationale for later school start times, and acknowledges the potential benefits to students with regard to physical and mental health, safety and academic achievement.”

The new law drew comments from both its backers and those who voted against it in the senate and the Assembly.

“Today, Gov. Newsom displayed a heartwarming and discerning understanding of the importance of objective research and exercised strong leadership as he put our children’s health and welfare ahead of institutional bureaucracy resistant to change,” Portantino said in a statement. “Generations of children will come to appreciate this historic day and our governor for taking bold action. Our children face a public health crisis. Shifting to a later start time will improve academic performance and save lives because it helps our children be healthier.”

Assemblymember Vince Fong, one of several to vote against the bill while it was in the assembly, remains a vocal opponent.

“This is another example of how Sacramento thinks they know better than us. School start time should be a local issue that is tailored to the unique needs of their local community and students—not a one-size-fits-all mandate from Sacramento politicians,” said Fong. “I opposed this measure and am very disappointed that the Governor continues to run roughshod over the will of local communities, parents, and students.”

‘Unique circumstances’

Ostash said the effects of the law could have two major negative impacts on the district should it be subject to it.

The first would be transportation. Parents’ work schedules would be the second.

SSUSD’s bus operations cover a large swath of territory, bringing students in from as far south as Johannesburg or from far sides of Inyokern. The schedules are integrated in such a way that drop-off times are staggered for the district’s six elementary schools.

“We might need to flip some of those start times or we might need to consider putting all of our elementary schools on an early or later start time,” Ostash said. “No matter how or what we do for transportation, we have to stagger it.”

Ostash added should advocacy not be successful and the date for implementation moves closer, community input will be needed.

“What are the priorities, what kind of feedback will our parents have and what are their needs for care, perhaps before school?” Ostash said. “We would inventory all those needs and then develop our plan because we will comply with the law.”

Another negative impact is the parents’ work schedules.

“We are a one-large-employer town and our largest employer — China Lake — is an early start institution,” Ostash said. “They don’t start work at 8 or 9 a.m.”

“Whenever students involved in athletics or other extracurricular activities require transportation to places like Victorville or Apple Valley, those places are two-plus hours away,” Ostash said. “You’re getting a later start, getting home later in the night than they already do, so that’s another big impact.”

Ostash said there are still many unknowns with the signed bill.

“It’s like an unfinished law that the governor signed,” Ostash said.

He added that when Brown vetoed the bill last year, be believed it was done because the old governor supported local control over school districts.

“Remember that it was Gov. Brown who was the one who ushered in the Local Control Fund Formula, which is rooted in the concept of local control … the one-size-fits-all is not consistent with his belief of locally designed solutions,” Ostash said. “Gov. Newsom seems to be messaging that he might not appear to be as committed to the idea of local control and locally designed solutions.”

Local control works best and goes hand-in-hand with the LCFF, Ostash said: A locally elected school board that represents the community and knows best how to utilize school district funds and spending.

Barlow, the county superintendent of schools, echoed that sentiment in an Oct. 10 column published in the Bakersfield Californian, especially when it comes to laws like the later start bill.

“In a state as large, geographically and socio‐economically diverse as ours, this is a decision that should only be made by locally elected school district trustees — informed by input from parents, teachers and other stakeholders — who know and understand the needs of their students and community,” Barlow wrote.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.